State Attorney's Office will not charge Jacksonville father in kick of stepson off skateboard ramp

Screen grab from Instagram user @lilbubs from a video that shows what appears to be a man pushing a young boy off of a skate ramp.

More public safety coverage

Subscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner

Calling it child abuse but citing insufficient evidence of a crime, prosecutors will not charge a Jacksonville man for kicking his stepson off a skateboard ramp in a videotaped incident last month that drew international outrage.

A disposition statement obtained by the Times-Union Thursday afternoon cites various reasons for not charging Marcus Lee Crossland, 27, in the April 25 kick that caused his 6-year-old stepson to fall 9 feet at Kona Skatepark in Arlington.

The reasons included the boy’s mother’s desire not to have Crossland prosecuted, his absence of a criminal history and parental tendencies to teach children survival skills without intending to commit a crime. Prosecutors were also satisfied that Crossland completed anger-control classes as recommended by the state Department of Children and Families during its investigation of the case, the statement said.

The Children and Families investigation was separate from a probe by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office.

“This act of child abuse was not that egregious that it warranted incarceration,” Assistant State Attorney Alan Mizrahi said. “The act was of a nature that the [anger-control] classes he completed were the appropriate punishment, especially considering his lack of a criminal history.”

Crossland could not be immediately reached to comment. Emily White, his wife and the boy’s mother, said she was pleased with the decision and hopes her husband has learned his lesson.

“I don’t want my husband to go to jail,” White said from her front door.

Kona park owner Martin Ramos said he was not surprised by the decision. Ramos said he’s still unsure if he’ll allow Crossland back into the park but welcomes the return of the boy, a highly skilled skateboarder for his age.

“It was definitely wrong, it was definitely dumb, but I don’t necessarily think it was criminal,” Ramos said of what the stepfather did.

The statement written by Mizrahi said there was no question that Crossland used his foot to push the boy off the high ramp, which was captured in a video filmed by another skateboarder. Crossland called his action a “bonehead decision” in a “Today” show interview 10 days ago. It was Crossland’s only public statement.

Prosecutors learned that the boy, wearing a helmet and knee and elbow pads, was pushed off the ramp several times by Crossland while trying to demonstrate that he would “survive” the fall, the statement said.

While the boy suffered bruises and scrapes, “none of the injuries required significant medical attention. We cannot attribute any bruise or scrape to any particular fall and the injuries suffered by [the boy] are typical for the sport,” the statement said.

“Critical in this analysis is the fact that the push was not done out of anger or rage,” the statement continued. “[The boy] states that he was pushed because his dad wanted to teach him to not be afraid of the ramp. It is clear from the video that [Crossland] is never screaming or yelling at the child. [Crossland] appears calm, almost nonchalant, about the act.”

The statement said the case captured the tension that exists between punishing people who criminally injure children and an overreaching government that interferes with how parents raise their children.

“Our law unequivocally states it is not a crime for a parent of a child to impose reasonable physical discipline on a child for misbehavior under the circumstances even though physical injury resulted from the discipline,” the statement said. “While not classic discipline, our culture does allow for parents to ‘push’ their children to succeed.”

The statement cited several examples of what may be considered shocking behavior by parents toward children, yet be seen as implementing a reasonable tough-love approach rather than criminal abuse.

Those examples included: tackling a youth football player to demonstrate that the child will “survive” the hit; throwing baseballs at a youth baseball player to demonstrate that the child will “survive” being hit; pushing a child off a diving board to demonstrate they will “survive” the fall; and letting go of a child learning to ride a bike to demonstrate they will “survive” a fall.

Skateboarding could also be incorporated into those examples by requiring a participant to overcome his or her fear of falling in order to perform at the highest level, the statement said.

“It is extremely difficult for the criminal justice system to distinguish between criminal abuse and aggressive parenting techniques,” the statement said. “It is just that difficulty that requires our office to be very conservative in deciding when to make parental decisions criminal.”

The statement said Crossland’s actions could have reasonably injured the boy from such a height and been considered “objectively abusive.” But it also noted that government must be conservative with policing parental decisions.

The statement added that Crossland was “very cooperative” with the investigation and is remorseful. It also noted that the victim’s mother didn’t want him prosecuted and is very protective of her son.

“Balancing all the issues in this case, this case is appropriate for referral to a pre-trial diversion program for [Crossland] to complete anger-control and parenting skills classes,” the statement said. “As [Crossland] has already completed both classes, a diversionary program would serve no legitimate purpose and would waste unnecessary resources.”

The Crosslands have previously said the incident and publicity have taken a toll on their family and livelihoods.

Teaching a person that safely equipment works is different than just harming someone for the fun of it. Fire fighters have to go into a burning training simulator, some paratroopers get kicked out of a plane. The father did not pick the kid up and throw him down.

While the writer and those interviewed for the article provided some well articulated rationalizations, just think about what would be happening right now if this man done the same things to a dog or cat. He would most likely already be in jail playing the part of some burly guy's b**tch.

While a jail sentence would be inappropriate, this guy stroked the system. Should this guy two years from now perform similar actions but they have a different outcome (broken bones and such) there is no action able to be taken to show a pattern of behavior. He would be a first time offender.

This should have been processed through the court system, the guy determined to be guilty and given a probation sentence. There would then be a legal record of the poor judgement. As it sits now, from previous and present stories, he lost his job, he paid for a class, and he's not allowed into a local park (as long as the present person is in charge of the park). If he pays a few hundred dollars for a legal name change and moves a state away, he gets to start anew with no discernible issues.